Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avigad Berman

Originally from Talk:Avigad Berman, slightly reformatted:
 * Article of dubious encyclopedic relevance about a fictional character, with a picture added of an unknown person. -- The Anome 18:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * stop deleting this page! this is not the hebrew wikipedia! the is no reason to delete it! a stupid person from the hebrew wikipedia makes problems there and here.-user 1
 * To all the English users of Wikipedia: The person that wrote this was banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia because of vandalising, and his article about Avigad Berman was totally deleted. He also linked this article to its sequel, knowing there is no such. my advise, as a hebrew sysop and one of those that banned the vandaliser (he subscribed 4 times!), is that you bann him too, and delete this article.--user 2
 * Please, anyone with a lock, do something - lock it and ban that user. he's bnothing but trouble. this is a bogus entry. Eranb 14:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * To the submitter: please justify the creation of this article, which appears to exist to insult someone that it states is fictitious, and then adds what claims to be a picture of that person. You have repeatedly removed speedy deletion tags from this page without providing reasons why. Google hits for the name "Avigad Berman": two. -- The Anome 17:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Avigad is a Israeli man - search in Google "&#1488;&#1489;&#1497;&#1490;&#1491; &#1489;&#1512;&#1502;&#1503;" and you will see his article and his picture. He is not a real man - He is very important repoter, he wortes in the most famous Hebrew web site (walla - &#1493;&#1493;&#1488;&#1500;&#1492;) and you can see it on Google. He is also appearing on google by english ("Avigad Berman") on the first result (see his photo by clicking "his photo" link on "walla photo" topic)
 * Okay, you say "he is not a real man" and yet "He is very important repoter", and "you will see his article and his picture". If he's a fictional character, who is the picture of? -- The Anome 17:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * i don't know from where is the picture but is not a real man - this is a very famous character in Israel.
 * Right, so let's start by deleting the picture: unknown source, of an unknown person. -- The Anome 17:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * the picture has as a source - (by Walla!) see the external links
 * And its copyright status is what exactly? -- The Anome 17:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * the photo belongs to Walla, thy shouldn't have problem that it will published in wikipedia they are using this photo all the time
 * Until you get explicit permission from the copyright owners to use the photo we cannot use it. I'm going to remove it from the page. (but not actually delete it yet theresa knott 18:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * now that you remove the picture (i'll ask for permission...) can you remove it form the deletion category?
 * OK, I'll move the page from speedy deletion to votes for deletion, where it can be discussed further, and I'll unprotect it. -- The Anome 18:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

i've got a permission from Walla to use the picture (support@walla.co.il)
 * Avigad Berman isn't important at all. I live in Israel, I am part of the Hebrew Wikipedia and sysop. If we got to the conclusion that this article is unimportant, even as people that this man is known to us, there is no reason that you don't delete it. This person is fictionall and unimportant. The person that wrote the article is a consistent vandaliser, which was banned 4 times. I don't see any reason for the English wikipedia to have this unimportant stub.


 * This is too silly for words. Delete. -- The Anome 19:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Q:What is the biggest site in Israel?
 * A:Walla!
 * Q:Who is Walla! most famous reporter?
 * A:Avigad Berman

Do Not Delete


 * Delete. But if it's kept, PLEASE delete the photo.  It's impossible to have a photo of a fictional character.  Reminds me of the book version of MASH, where they were selling autographed photographs of Jesus on the cross.  RickK 20:00, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rick, I don't believe that VfD is the place to make arguments about religion, implied or otherwise. --Slowking Man 22:04, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * My comment had nothing to do with religion, and all to do with false photographs. You DO understand that photography didn't exist at the time of the crucifixion, right?  RickK 22:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of that, but your two sentences, when coupled together, appeared to be a thinly disguised attack implying that Jesus is a fictional character. Thank you for clarifying. --Slowking Man 23:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll give you that walla.co.il appears to be the highest-traffic Hebrew-language website, with 3 month average Alexa traffic rank around 452. But what about this apparently fictional reporter? I agree with Rick about the picture, by the way. -- The Anome 20:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Avigad is an A-C-T-O-R and he has a picture, this is the photo behind the man who act him - "Avigad Berman" is an fictional name that Walla made up. Please bring his photo back.
 * A reporter has an actor? How can a real reporter be a character played by an actor? -- The Anome 21:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * To say "I don't get it" would be an understatement. Delete unless someone can write an article about this guy which makes sense to English speakers. Rhobite 21:19, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * What the hell? Delete. --Slowking Man 22:04, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of article which benefits from deletion and possibly a later rewrite from scratch from someone who knows about the subject and can write lucidly for this Wikipedia version's primary linguistic audience. --Ianb 22:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks like a bunch of crap to me.   &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like a bunch of patent nonsense to me. Type 2 patent nonsense, to be correct, or "number 2" for short. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Article as it stands makes no sense and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it deserves to be included then someone needs to give it a full rewrite. Delete. &mdash; Trilobite 01:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: Um, ok, if I can figure this out (I got an A- in reading), this is a fictional columnist for an Israeli IT magazine. The magazine has a fictional, joke character who fits the typical nerd profile.  It's a humor/tech column, I think.  This joke figure is appreciated by readers of the magazine.  Now, having parsed all that from this untranslated article and its non-fluent language, it's a pure delete.  The figure is not notable for our readers.  Geogre 02:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm from Israel, and you are totally right, except for one thing: This joke figure is appreciated by readers of the magazine - even if it was true, this isn't a reason to have this pathetic article. If even the Isreali Wikipedia deleted this thing, so are we gonna have this thing?! No Way. And by the way, the guy that wrote the article said he got permission to use the picture - if they really banned him from the Heb. Wikipedia 4 times, I wouldn't count on his word...Delete now


 * Delete, delete, delete. - UtherSRG 04:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * delete it plese as soon as possible. this is fictional character


 * Don't delete!!!--Wweewq 13:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't delete, there is 300000 articles here i see no reason to delete Avigad--Israhell 13:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit suspicious of Israhell being a sockpuppet. Anyway, not notable. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Wweewq too. Two and three edits, respectively. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete - if that character is non-notable for the hebrew wikipedia, it is even more so for the english one. And the current state of the article isn't worth keeping even if it were a notable character. andy 14:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep it - Avigad is notable enough!!!--Wiki2600 15:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: sock puppet --Ianb 18:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 
 * Don't Delete!!! --0n1y0n3 16:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: sock puppet --Ianb 18:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 
 * IF this isn't a completely made up article, and IF this is as well known in Israel as some say it is, and IF this is completely rewritten so it makes sense, THEN maybe keep. It seems this guy may be some sort of Ali G like character or something -- a character played by an actor who does some "journalism" for entertainment purposes -- but right now I can't tell what the deal is with him. There are alot of pretty unnoteworthy characters, both fictional and real, who have their own articles. Still, delete if the criteria I just mentioned are not met.-R. fiend 17:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You got it right Avigad Berman is the Israeli "Ali G". it would be a crime to delete this article! if you wann'a you can rewirte it. Don't Delete! --Wikiwikiwiki 18:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: sock puppet --Ianb 18:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 
 * The amount of energy used in the article's defense in this debate is amazing. If that energy had been used on improving the article to make it understandable then maybe it would be a keeper (If it really is worthy of inclusion). Delete. Thue | talk 19:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * KEEP IT! DO NOT DELETE AND REMOVE THE VfD!!! --Public Enemy 20:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 
 * Why doesn't someone who defends this page at least take the trouble to put it into understandable English? As it is, it looks like it was written by an illiterate 7-year-old.  On that basis alone it should be an automatic delete. Hayford Peirce 20:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see any spelling mistakes or problems with the grammar - if you see some fix them (after the page will be unprotected)... --Public Enemy 21:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet above (3 contributions, all on this VFD page)

delete with extreme predjudice. This is too ridiculous for words.


 * This is insanity. Delete with extreme prejudice, ban sockpuppets because I utterly loathe them  and reformat all Wikipedia servers.  Or at least delete this as patent nonsense.  Did I mention that I loathe sockpuppets? - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If this is, indeed, worth keeping, would the guy with six hands please remove a sockpuppet and go edit the article? Which is to say, I'm hearing a bit here that suggests there is an article worth having on this topic, but that someone is wasting his/her time (and a lot of other people's) by disingenuously defending a poor article instead of turning it into one worth keeping. -- Jmabel 01:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: Right on.  Stop sockpuppeteering, start fixing.  I should point out that my pathetic attempt at sarcasm has generated a hilarious discourse on my talk page. - Lucky 6.9 01:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with the "stop sockpuppeteering, start fixing" guys here. The mere fact that someone feels obliged to take on such measures to defend the article might just be evidence enough that we don't need it. Well, apart from that, I think I would have voted merge with Walla, an article that would have better chances of surviving – if someone could write it in understandable English. -- Jao 06:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well he couldn't fix it whilst it was protected. Perhaps it will be fixed now. theresa knott 23:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. And by the way, I don't know who is on that picture, but it's not Avigad Berman. I searched the Hebrew name on Google, and found this picture on . Pathetic. This proves there is no such person as Avigad Berman, and as an Israeli and one of those who banned this vandaliser from the Hebrew Wikipedia (see above), I can tell you that this person isn't important at all. I'll say this again: if we found this person unimportant, why should you have it? Whoever wrote the Avigad Berman page is a well-known vandaliser on the Heb. Wikipedia, uses sockpuppets, lier (he said he got permission to use the picture from Walla, but they don't even have the copyrights), and he also did some sort of vandalising in this Wikipedia as well: he did an interwiki to Hebrew, knowing there is no such article in Hebrew anymore. Delete now.
 * Unadulterated unmitigated crapola. Delete. -- Stevietheman 13:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * uglypeople.com took the picture from walla.co.il! in Walla! you can see his shoulders but in the uglypeople website  you can't. Conclusion: The picture belongs to Walla! KEEP IT!!  --80.16.106.83 14:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if the picture really does belong to Walla, which I dought, there are many other reasons to delete (sockpuppet, vandalising, Hebrew vandalising, Hebrew finding it uninportant etc.)
 * i dont care about the hebrew wiki... this his not the hebrew wiki and there is no vandalising related to this article! Keep! - im also from Israel and i found him very important. i can rewrite the article (after it will be unprotected and removed from VFD. i've a lot to add about it. Keep it up! --80.230.40.125 18:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the page to give you a chance to improve the article now. Perhaps if it is rewritten people may change their votes from delete to keep. theresa knott 23:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

'''KEEP! Don't Delete'''! --Qwerty1234 18:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete please. Quite a limp article. Fire Star 14:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, and ban sockpuppeteer. -Sean Curtin 20:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * sockpuppeteer??? i dont think so... --Qwerty1234 23:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain why you think the page should be kept? theresa knott 23:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No encyclopedic value. Eranb 16:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep! can i remove the VFD now? there is a majority to keep this article... --83.130.212.58 23:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "there is a majority to keep this article." !!!
 * No, there's not; count the votes, noting that anon users and sockpuppets do not count towards the vote, and that you can only have your vote counted once. -- The Anome 00:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've counted, and there is no majority for keeping: 20 (including myselfe) said delete, there are 6 proven sockpuppeteers, and only 1 that said to keep and wasn't proven sockpuppeteer, though it was suggested that he was. Unregistered votes weren't counted. Those that said delete unless improved have been counted as voting delete, since the article wasn't improved. This is just to show that the claim above that there is a majority for keeping is totally rubbish.--Roy 11:47, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)